All of this is a precursor to what I think may be the biggest development thus far in the mainstreaming of the “implicit bias” theory and training.

Earlier this week, Starbucks announced that it will close all 8000+ of its stores next month to conduct anti-bias training for its 175,000 employees. My guess is that it is one of the biggest single-day training events of its kind attempted in the United States.

According to The New York Times article, the answer remains unknown. Some studies show their effectiveness. But in some instances, it can have a negative effect as well.

Other academics and experts on bias caution that anti-bias training is a sensitive exercise that can be ineffective or even backfire if handled incorrectly. Any training that involves explicitly telling people to set aside their biases is especially likely to fail, said Seth Gershenson, an economist at American University who has also studied anti-bias training, because it requires so much mental energy it can exhaust people.

Even with training, some said, it is exceedingly easy to revert to the original biases. “In the moment of stress, we tend to forget our training,” said Mark Atkinson, the chief executive of Mursion, which provides a simulation platform for training workers in skills like interpersonal interactions.

I’m eager to see how Starbucks continues to develop this. Its response to an earlier incident may be used as a role model to other companies who have had to deal with these types of issues. We should all be hoping its succeeds.

You have your bread. And milk. Presumably eggs too. (Anyone making French Toast this morning?)

But do you know the employment law rules that apply for winter storms and classic nor’easters like we have today?

I’ve written about it plenty before, but here are three issues you may not have thought about recently.

Reporting Time or Minimum Daily Earnings Guaranteed: Connecticut has a “reporting time” obligation (as do several of our neighboring states). It is contained in various regulations and applies to certain industries like the “mercantile trade”. You should already be aware of this law, but it has particular application in storm situations where people may not work full shifts.

For example, in Conn. Regs. 31-62-D2(d) for stores, an employer who requests an employee to report to duty shall compensate that employee for a minimum of 4 hours regardless of whether any actual work ends up getting assigned. So if you bring your employees in today only to send them home 30 minutes later, you may be on the hook. For restaurant workers, it is typically a minimum of two hours (Conn. Regs. 31-62-E1)

Takeaway? For certain industries, be sure to know whether you will need to pay employees for a minimum amount of time if you send them home early from their shift.

Wage Agreements: Also be aware of any wage agreements (collective bargaining agreements mainly) that require you to provide employees with a guaranteed minimum number of work hours. Typically, these will need to be followed.

Hours Worked: Be aware of Connecticut’s “hours worked” regulation found in Conn. Regs. 31-60-11. That regulation says that “all time during which an employee is required to be on call for emergency service at a location designated by the employer shall be considered to be working time” regardless of whether the employee is called to work.

When an employee is on call, but is simply required to keep employer informed of whereabouts or until contacted by the employer, working time starts when the employee is notified of his assignment and ends when that employee is finished.

As I’ve said before, none of these issues should really be new for an employer in Connecticut. But with this being the first big storm of the season, it’s time to shovel out those policies.

The court ruled that an employee’s FLSA claims in court were barred by the arbitration clause contained in his employment agreement. While it isn’t the first time, it’s clear logic will be tough to ignore.

For the court, it was not even a close call. The court ruled that the Supreme Court’s pronouncement years ago that age discrimination claims were barred by an arbitration clause controlled.

The court also looked at whether its decision in the Cheeks v. Freeport Pancake House, Inc. – which required oversight of settlements of FLSA claims — precluded arbitration. The court said it did not.

The rationale of Cheeks, however, is assurance of the fairness of a settlement of a claim filed in court, not a guarantee of a judicial forum.

For employers in Connecticut it remains to be seen if the Connecticut Supreme Court will be all in on such a logic for state wage & hour law claims, but the federal endorsement of arbitration provisions provide a strong basis for doing so.

Nevertheless, employers should once again consider whether mandatory arbitration provisions are right for their workforce, particularly when combined with class action waivers. Having such provisions in place could make a big difference in the future.

Late yesterday, various press reports signaled what could be the beginning of the end for 2011 Department of Labor guidance that had greatly expanded legal claims against restaurants.

The 2011 rule barred businesses (mainly restaurants) from including nontipped workers in their tip pools. That practice – if done involuntarily – then entitles the servers or waitstaff who have contributed those tips to the tip pool to minimum wage for their hours (not the tip-credit minimum wage.)

As of this morning, the DOL had not released its’ rule publicly, but according to a Law 360 report the description “suggests it would roll back the DOL’s 2011 rule amending its interpretation of the Fair Labor Standards Act to blog businesses from giving a portion of service employees’ tips to traditionally nontipped workers, such as kitchen staff.”

The attack on this 2011 guidance is also making its way through the courts. The U.S. Supreme Court is expected to decide soon whether to review a case out of the Ninth Circuit that upheld the tip pooling rule.

The timing of the DOL’s expected rollback is unclear, but it could have a significant impact on many cases pending in the court systems or being threatened now. At the current rate, a change could be expected in the first quarter of 2018.

For restaurants and other employers such as hotels that have tipped employees, this change ought to be closely followed. Until we see the scope of the proposed rule change, it is unclear what the full impact on existing cases will be but given past practices on situations like this, but it might just evaporate a whole host of lawsuits that have popped up.

Back in 2011, I discussed a titillating case of strip club dancers (or, a decision says, “performers”, “entertainers”, “dancers” or even “exotic dancers” — although not “strippers”) who were trying to claim wages for the time they worked at a popular strip club in Connecticut.

And as a result, we get a revealing look at the efforts one club made to try to avoid having strippers be deemed “employees” and how it ultimately failed.

The strip club — sorry, “adult entertainment establishment” as it called itself — had the strippers sign leases “renting” out the poles and space of the strip club. In doing so, the Club argued that these dancers were no more than tenants, and therefore, not entitled to wages, benefits or any of the normal protections that come with being an employee.

Under the “lease”, according to the decision, the dancers agreed to perform “semi-nude (topless) and/or nude dance entertainment” at the Club.”

In doing this work, dancers agreed to “perform consistent with the industry standards of a professional exotic dancer.”

(Aside: Professional exotic dancers have INDUSTRY standards?)

The Lease also provided that there will be set fees (called “entertainment fees”) for certain performances, “such as couch and table dances,” and that dancers “may not charge more than the set fees.”

Oh, and they wouldn’t be paid any wages.

And here’s where it gets REALLY interesting.

If they ever DID claim wages, the lease provided that they would forfeit all of the entertainment fees they previously earned. And, to top it all off, should the dancers claim to be employees, they will also be liable for any attorneys’ fees, costs, or other damages incurred by the Club as a result of that claim.

But the arbitrator was having none of it.

He detailed the requirements of the strippers saying that there were four principal ways a dancer can “perform” — all of which indicated that they were tied to the Club (and therefore employees).

A “stage set”, in which the only income is the tips the customers choose to give her.

A “private dance” or “booth dance”, in which the Club sets the “mandatory entertainment fees”. (A booth dance here cost $25, of which the dancer keeps $20 and pays $5 to the Club.) Tips encouraged.

A “VIP” area in which the fee for that performance is $100 for 15 minutes, $200 for 30 minutes and $300 for an hour and in which the entire fee goes to the Club. Tips encouraged as well.

A “Champagne Room” performance, in which the customer is charged $110 for one half hour and in which the entire fee goes to the Club. Customer is free to tip the dancer.

At the end of a shift, the dancer must pay “rent” to the Club of $20 and a tip to the DJ.

The arbitrator said that the dancers were employees and therefore entitled to the protections under state and federal law. Minimum wage was owed, for example. Moreover, the “lease” violated state law because it called for a refund of wages under Conn. Gen. Stat. Sec. 31-73.

The arbitrator noted that while employers and employees have “wide latitude” to enter into wage agreements, that latitude does not extend to permitting parties to override or ignore the requirements of Connecticut law.

The arbitrator took particular note of the paragraphs that required the dancers to return “all” entertainment fees if they challenged their employment status. These provisions are “clearly designed to penalize the employee for exercising her right to insist upon proper classification. The inherent purpose of the Lease is to violate the law.”

The decision goes on to analyze the proper penalties and set-offs in such a case. Here, the arbitrator again was not sympathetic to the employer — and for good reason. The employer failed to prove it acted “in good faith” — and therefore the dancers were entitled to liquidated (or double) damages.

How much? Nearly $130,000 in damages for two strippers — plus attorneys’ fees.

The case is a great example of what happens on the fringes of wage and hour law. The vast majority of employers in this state play by the rules and wouldn’t even dream of cooking up a “lease” for its employees to sign.

But the law exists to protect the dancers too and here, there’s little doubt that justice has been well-served by the award here.

About Dan

Daniel A. Schwartz created the Connecticut Employment Law Blog in 2007 with the goal of sharing new and noteworthy items relating to employment law with employers, human resources personnel, and executives in Connecticut. Since then, the blog has been recognized by the ABA Journal, and was one of ten named to the “Blog Hall of Fame” in recognition of the blog’s contributions and consistency over the years.